2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on April 4, 2015 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

A. The Plaintiff is an individual entrepreneur who had been engaged in the manufacturing business on October 1, 2007 and then closed on June 30, 2013, and thereafter is subject to confirmation of the bona fide return of global income tax for the taxable year 2012.

B. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff calculated the amount of income by estimation without submitting a certificate of faithful return to the Defendant without submitting a certificate of faithful return, and filed a return of KRW 00,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant tax reduction or exemption”) with the amount of special tax reduction or exemption for small and medium enterprises pursuant to Article 7 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12853, Dec. 23, 2014) (hereinafter “instant return”).

C. The Board of Audit and Inspection, from November 17, 2014 to December 12, 2014, ordered the Defendant to take a disposition to exclude the tax reduction or exemption for the instant tax reduction or exemption on the ground that, under the Income Tax Act and the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, a business operator subject to verification of bona fide return fails to submit a certificate of bona fide return while filing a comprehensive income tax return after May 31 of the following year of the taxable period, the business operator subject to verification of bona fide return would not cause the special tax reduction or exemption for small or medium enterprises.

D. Accordingly, on April 4, 2015, the Defendant excluded the instant tax amount reduced or exempted for the Plaintiff, thereby correcting and notifying the global income tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the taxable year 2012 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for review on June 30, 2015, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service dismissed the request for review on November 3, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3

the purpose of each entry, as a whole, of the entire pleadings, including branch numbers

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a business subject to the verification of faithful reporting pursuant to Article 70-2 of the Income Tax Act, and the reporting deadline is up to June 30 of the year following the taxable period, and even if the Plaintiff did not submit a certificate of faithful reporting at the time of the instant report, the Plaintiff becomes subject to additional tax pursuant to Article 81-13 of the Income Tax Act, and the issue of return after the due date does not occur. The reporting deadline of the business entity subject to verification of faithful reporting is announced by June 30 of the following year, and the content of the guidance for verification of faithful reporting is the same, and the reporting deadline shall be interpreted by June 30 of the following year. Therefore, the instant report shall be deemed to have been made within the reporting deadline, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the instant report falls under the category after the due date

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted as the legal text, barring special circumstances, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of equity in taxation to strictly interpret the provisions that clearly indicate preferential provisions among the requirements for reduction and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

2) In the instant case, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiff based on the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole on each of the evidence and evidence set forth in subparagraphs A and 4 through 8, it is reasonable to view that the period for filing the instant report constitutes a return after the given deadline and the special tax reduction or exemption should be excluded pursuant to Article 128(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 12173, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “former Restriction of Special Taxation Act”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the instant disposition is lawful.

(1) Article 70(1) of the Income Tax Act provides that a resident shall file a return on the tax base of global income with the head of the competent tax office from May 1 to May 31 of the year following the taxable period, and Article 70-2(2) of the same Act provides that where a business operator subject to verification of bona fide return submits a certificate of bona fide return, a final return on the tax base of global income shall be filed from May 1 to June 30 of the year following the taxable period, notwithstanding Article 70(1) of the same Act, and does not stipulate that Article 70(1) of the same Act shall not apply to cases where a business operator subject to verification of bona fide return fails to submit a certificate of bona fide return until May 31 of the year following the taxable period pursuant to Article 70(1) of the Income Tax Act.

② Article 81(13) of the Income Tax Act provides for additional tax in cases where a business operator subject to verification of faithful reporting fails to submit a written confirmation of faithful reporting, and does not require the submission of a report within a given period. On the other hand, Article 128(2) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that the case of filing a return after a given period shall be excluded from reduction or exemption. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the application and requirements are different

③ Although the period for filing a final return on global income tax on a person subject to verification of bona fide return was announced as “5.1. to June 30, 200” on the National Tax Service’s website, a person subject to verification of bona fide return should submit a certificate of bona fide return to the head of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment when filing a final return on global income tax, and in this case, the final return on global income tax should be from May 1 to June 30.” In addition, a person subject to verification of bona fide return on global income tax payment due to guidance data on global income tax payment due date was announced as “5.1. to June 30, 200 for the following year.” At the same time, a person subject to verification of bona fide return on global income tax payment due date was notified to submit a certificate of bona fide return along with the documents subject to submission. In addition, even if a tax authority, including the Defendant, fails to submit a certificate of bona fide return on the details of the above guidance data, it cannot be deemed that the reporting date was a public statement of opinion.

④ At the time of the instant return, the Plaintiff stated that the “report after the due date” was included in the “division of the final return on global income tax, etc. and the “statement of payment” column. At the same time, the Plaintiff reported and paid penalty tax for failure to submit a certificate of bona fide return. It seems that the Plaintiff was aware of the issue of the reporting deadline due to failure to submit a certificate

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)